[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 2 13:30:06 PDT 2014
My apologies, I didn't clue into the fact that you were the dependent on
my first read through.
I used to work as the main programmer in HR and Payroll for a number of
years (this was six or seven years ago that I left, I think). I did a
lot of the programming involving open enrollment for benefits at that
time, including doing much of the work on the various incarnations of
the vandal web pages that we used to have where you could choose your
plan and your dependents and whatnot before we outsourced it. I can't
be sure because it's been a few years, but I thought the amount a person
had on their employer deduction (HI7, if I remember correctly) varied
based on which plan they were on and whether or not they had
dependents. I could be wrong about that, though, and they could have of
course completely changed their policies since then anyway.
At any rate, I take your point that the employer may not pay very much,
if anything, towards the actual cost of the insurance for employees let
alone their dependents.
I don't know if Hobby Lobby pays anything towards their employee's
health care or not. Maybe we should find out before we accuse them of
having no skin in the game.
I don't know what Constitutional right you think is being violated
here. The end result is that they don't have to offer one of four
contraceptives on their health care plan that they object to. There is
no Constitutional right that I'm aware that says that your employer must
provide those specific items on their plan. The employee will have to
find some other way to pay for them if they need to use them. Just like
anything else that isn't covered by the plan.
Also, thank you for implying that if I don't agree with you then I must
be misinformed, insensitive, or stupid.
Paul
On 07/02/2014 11:19 AM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> To recap:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> "It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer
> pays."
>
> My response was that your statement is incorrect:
>
> "The last time I checked, *my husband and I *paid 100% of the cost of
> *my* health insurance through the UI, and that's the way it was for
> all state employees the last time I checked. That's been the trend,
> too, with private sector employer-based health insurance for a *number
> of years*, as well as eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for
> the employee. Indeed, there are more than a few employers who offer
> absolutely no health insurance subsidy for employees -- their position
> is that their "subsidy" is allowing the employee the benefit of being
> a part of a larger group that gets a lower rate."
>
> You further responded:
>
> "In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay stub
> (posted for the 3rd of June), I see a line item for "Employer
> Contribution for Benefits". It's about $350 in my case, paid by the
> employer per biweek."
>
> Yes, that is the UI's contribution to the *employee's* benefits.
> There is *no employer subsidy* for the health benefits of spouses
> and/or dependents.
>
> So, we're back to my assertion that your initial statement was
> incorrect and my request that you quit making false statements, yes?
>
> Further, assuming that Hobby Lobby operates the same way (a relatively
> safe bet), then how can you defend the SCOTUS decision *where HL has
> no skin in the game*; that is, there is *no employer financial
> contribution* to the coverage they claim to find personally objectionable?
>
> You seem to be advocating a position that necessarily involves
> trampling the Constitutional rights of women that are completely and
> wholly unrelated to any aspect of employment "just because" the
> employer finds those Constitutional protections objectionable. In
> this instance, your are placing a higher value on what you perceive to
> be the religious freedom of a for-profit business at the expense of
> the Constitutional rights of actual real-life people (in this
> instance, women), which is completely at odds with your stated
> positions. You are, essentially, advocating a position where the
> Constitutional rights of those with economic power (in this instance,
> employers) trumps the Constitutional and legal protections guaranteed
> to individuals *regardless of economic power*.
>
> And, if you don't understand the chilling consequences of such a
> stance, then I can only conclude you've not truly exercised your
> critical thinking skills and/or are intentionally ignoring the very
> real concerns being discussed by those who know far more than your or
> I will ever know about medicine and the law.
>
> Saundra
>
> *From:*Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:24 PM
> *To:* Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
> It's statements like these that I'm objecting to:
>
> "...of course it's of no consequence to *you* that..."
>
> "...but it's good to know you belong in the "tyranny of the bigots"
> category..."
>
> "...why on earth should you care that..."
>
> Are they really necessary? Can't we discuss the issues without
> getting personal?
>
> In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay stub
> (posted for the 3rd of June), I see a line item for "Employer
> Contribution for Benefits". It's about $350 in my case, paid by the
> employer per biweek. I also see employer amounts for "Pre-Tax Health
> Savings Account" (their match for the amount I'm putting in my HSA),
> and "Long" and "Short Term Disability Coverage". Also Medicare, but
> all employers have to pay FHI if I remember correctly.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 07/01/2014 01:44 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> I was hoping we could actually discuss your thinking without you
> playing your predictable "why is everybody always picking on me"
> card to avoid discussing statements you make that you want us to
> just blindly accept. I don't think pointing out the flaws,
> limitations, and obvious conclusions of your thinking are personal
> insults, but I'm sorry if your sensitivities made you feel as
> though they were because that wasn't my intention.
>
> Just as, I assume, you weren't intending to personally insult
> those of us with concerns about guns on campus by calling our
> concerns "irrational fears," or a lot of other comments you've
> made that might have felt like personal attacks if you were on the
> receiving end. What's that saying? Something about people in
> glass houses . . .
>
> So, let's try this *one* point again:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> "It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the
> employer pays."
>
> My response is that your statement is incorrect:
>
> "The last time I checked, *my husband and I *paid 100% of the cost
> of *my* health insurance through the UI, and that's the way it was
> for all state employees the last time I checked. That's been the
> trend, too, with private sector employer-based health insurance
> for a *number of years*, as well as eroding the percentage of
> employer subsidy for the employee. Indeed, there are more than a
> few employers who offer absolutely no health insurance subsidy for
> employees -- their position is that their "subsidy" is allowing
> the employee the benefit of being a part of a larger group that
> gets a lower rate."
>
> What say you?
>
> Saundra
>
> *From:*Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 1:07 PM
> *To:* Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
>
> Well, I was hoping we could discuss this without the personal
> insults.
>
> Paul
>
> On 07/01/2014 12:21 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> "It's subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the
> employer pays."
>
> Boy, you sure are out of touch with how modern employer-based
> health insurance is paid! Keep current, Paul, rather than
> disseminate long outdated sound bites.
>
> The last time I checked, *my husband and I *paid 100% of the
> cost of *my* health insurance through the UI, and that's the
> way it was for all state employees the last time I checked.
> That's been the trend, too, with private sector employer-based
> health insurance for a *number of years*, as well as eroding
> the percentage of employer subsidy for the employee. Indeed,
> there are more than a few employers who offer absolutely no
> health insurance subsidy for employees -- their position is
> that their "subsidy" is allowing the employee the benefit of
> being a part of a larger group that gets a lower rate.
>
> Paul also wrote:
>
> "I don't see a problem with a small group of "close-knit"
> people with similar beliefs objecting to something they feel
> goes against their religious beliefs."
>
> Of course you don't, but it's good to know you belong in the
> "tyranny of the bigots" category that thinks that anyone
> should be able to impose their religious beliefs on those with
> different beliefs, which certainly contradicts a lot of the
> positions you've stated on V2020. I'm in the category of
> thinking that people are free to believe whatever they want,
> but they don't have the right to force their religious beliefs
> on me.
>
> Too, why on earth should you care that about 90% of companies
> in America responsible for employing approximately 52% of
> working Americans qualify as "small closely-held" companies
> that can now use wholly false religious bigotry to deny access
> to necessary health care for female employees and employees
> with female family members? That may be the America you want
> to live in, but it isn't the one the majority of Americans
> want to live in.
>
> Paul also wrote:
>
> "Especially when the consequence is to pay for a specific
> contraceptive yourself."
>
> Once again, your gender ignorance and economic insensitivity
> would be stunning had you not exhibited them so many times before.
>
> Yes, the American way is to force female crime victims to bear
> the cost of being raped by men, isn't it, Paul, and that
> religious American ideal should be preserved at all costs,
> shouldn't it? It's also the American way relegate "immoral"
> women to forced breeder status when they have sex, isn't it?
>
> And, of course it's of no consequence to *you* that the cost
> of an IUD for women for whom that form of birth control is
> most appropriate is about a month's wage for lower paid
> employees without health insurance . . . or for plans that
> exclude coverage for women. That may be economically feasible
> for *you* since *you* don't fall into that category, but
> here's a news flash for you: that is as financially
> impossible for many women, particularly women who have
> children to feed & clothe. Yet you find it appropriate for
> religious bigots to punish women & children in an attempt to
> coerce "moral" behavior out of those uppity women.
>
> Of course, a viable alternative *might have been* to direct
> those women to non-profit family planning clinics like Planned
> Parenthood where contraceptives are more affordable. At
> least, that *might* have been a viable alternative before the
> Religious Right started its war on women. Oops -- guess
> that's not a viable alternative for a lot of women anymore.
>
> Saundra
>
> Moscow, ID
>
> Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
> that matter.
>
> ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Rumelhart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:05 AM
> *To:* Sunil; vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Yes, you're right. It's not free. It's subsidized by
> everyone who pays into it, plus what the employer pays. I
> don't see a problem with a small group of "close-knit" people
> with similar beliefs objecting to something they feel goes
> against their religious beliefs. Especially when the
> consequence is to pay for a specific contraceptive yourself.
> It's not like they are objecting to open-heart surgery.
>
> Is having the ability to get health care in general from your
> employer a basic human right? Is the ability to have your
> contraceptives in general or the "morning after" pill in
> specific as a part of your health plan offered at work a basic
> human right?
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Paul,
>
> Is your UI healthcare free or is it part of your employment
> compensation?
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:03:00 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>
> Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free
> contraceptives?
>
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>>
> *To:* vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates
> religious rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights
> of flesh-and-blood people. HL is not about restricting the
> power of government and it's naive to think that's its
> objective. If the government were restricting birth control,
> as it once did, this majority would have no objection to that
> exercise of government power.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com <mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>;
> donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
> <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see
> inconsistency in rulings. In both cases the rulings
> restricted the power of the government.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com
> <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Great points, Rose, and I'm afraid I agree with your
> assessment. Thank you for pointing out the obvious even if
> it's uncomfortable some.
>
> It's long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same
> code of ethics federal judges must adhere to.
>
> Saundra
>
> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Rosemary
> Huskey
> *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
>
> Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a
> certain philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped
> by private values that we trust and hold dear. In light of
> the Supreme Court decision supporting the Hobby Lobby owners
> refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim to be at
> odds with their religious beliefs, I wondered if the court
> was persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own
> religious affiliations. Were any of the five male justices
> associated with religious groups that uphold the doctrine of
> patriarchy, i.e., do they attend churches that deny women
> ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what? Justice Roberts,
> Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman
> Catholic.
>
> In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was
> announced in 1973 eight of the nine male justices were members
> of main stream Protestant churches. There may or may not be a
> direct correlation between religion affiliation and legal
> opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned gender
> privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the
> church certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and
> bestows unique privilege for male members. And, what could
> possibly more be patriarchal than controlling women's
> reproductive choices?
>
> Rose Huskey
>
>
> ======================================================= List
> services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> ======================================================= List
> services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140702/617a7244/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list